- (1.) This intra-court appeal arises from a judgment and order, dated 02.03.2021, of a Single Judge in Writ A No. 8811 of 2020 whereby the writ petition of the appellant assailing a punishment order of reversion, dated 01.10.2020, has been dismissed.
(2.) The factual matrix of the case is as follows:- (i) The appellant (writ petitioner) gained entry in service through U.P. Public Service Commission (for short the Commission) and, at the relevant time, was posted as District Inspector of Schools (for short DIOS), Basti. With reference to his functioning as DIOS Basti, he was served a charge-sheet, dated 17.05.2006, levelling upon him a charge that he granted permission/ approval for payment of salary to one Class C and three Class D employees appointed in educational institutions (i.e. M.P.B.P. Balika Inter College, Harraiya, Basti and Kishan Inter College, Bhanpur, Basti) without prior concurrence/ recommendation of the Regional Level Committee headed by Joint Director of Education, as was required by the Government Order dated 19.12.2000, and by doing so he violated the Government Order. With reference to this charge-sheet, a report exonerating the appellant was submitted on 02.06.2009 with which the State Government did not agree. Rather, it proposed a punishment of reversion to be imposed upon the appellant and sent the same for approval of the Commission. The Commission, however, disagreed with the proposed punishment and, rather, proposed a lesser punishment of withholding two increments. The State Government vide order dated 14.03.2012 passed the order as proposed by the Commission. This order of punishment, dated 14.03.2012, has been separately challenged by the appellant through Writ A No. 21916 of 2012 which is pending. (ii) In the meantime, another charge-sheet dated 15.04.2009, was served upon the appellant. The second charge-sheet levelled two charges. The first being that before granting approval to the appointment of Class C employee, namely, Shiv Kumar, at M.P.B.P. Balika Inter College, Harraiya, Basti, vide order dated 11.08.2004, the appellant failed to accord consideration for adjustment of compassionate appointees working against supernumerary posts, as was required by a Government Order dated 30.07.1992, thereby causing financial loss to the State Exchequer. In addition to above, it was alleged, the mandate of Government Order dated 19.12.2000 requiring approval from the Regional Level Committee was not met. The second charge levelled in the charge sheet dated 15.04.2009 was in respect of according approval to the appointment and payment of salary to as many as 10 direct appointees on the post of Peon in various institutions of the district without taking into consideration the mandate of the Government Order dated 30.07.1992 mentioned above. In addition to above, it was alleged, the appellant had failed to follow the guidelines contained in the Government Order dated 19.12.2000 requiring approval of the Regional Level Committee before appointment and payment of salary. It was alleged that the action of the appellant caused loss to the State Exchequer and amounted to violation of Rule 3(1) of U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 (for short 1956 Rules). (iii) The appellant submitted his reply to the charge-sheet dated 15.04.2009 stating, inter-alia, that requirement to first adjust compassionate appointees working against supernumerary posts did not place any restriction on appointment of persons belonging to reserved categories as clarified by Government Order dated 06.09.2000. In addition to that, it was stated that in respect of appointment on Class 'C' post, one Kamlesh Pratap Singh, appointed on a supernumerary post, was adjusted in Kishan Inter College, Basti. Apart from above, it was claimed that there were 160 sanctioned posts of clerk in the district against which there were only 145 appointees therefore, on the date of sanction of appointment, there were 15 posts lying vacant. In respect of not following the mandate of Government Order dated 19.12.2000 it was stated that the said Government Order would not come in the way of payment of salary made to appointees against already sanctioned posts inasmuch as its operation was limited to newly sanctioned posts. Support was drawn from a Government Order dated 29.12.2006, issued pursuant to High Court's order dated 09.05.2006 in Writ No.3363 of 2002, providing that for approval of appointment and sanction of salary to Group C and Group D posts in educational institutions covered by U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations framed thereunder it is the DIOS who is the authority competent. Likewise, in respect of charge no.2 similar defence was set up and, in addition to that, it was stated that there were as many as 624 sanctioned Group D posts in the district against which only 517 posts were filled and as many as 107 posts were vacant therefore the allegation that loss was caused to the State Exchequer is incorrect. Thus, in short, both the charges were denied by the appellant. (iv) After submission of reply by the appellant, on 17.02.2011 an enquiry report was forwarded to the State Government. Acting on it, the State Government issued show cause notice to the appellant on 20.09.2011 to which a reply was submitted by the appellant on 02.12.2011. After consultation with the Commission, the State Government, by order dated 01.10.2020, imposed major punishment of reversion upon the appellant, thereby, reverting him from the post of District Inspector of Schools to the post of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, as originally held by the appellant, coupled with a censure entry.
(3.) Through Writ A No.8811 of 2020, the appellant questioned the order of punishment, inter-alia, on two grounds:- (a) that the second charge-sheet in effect is an extension of the first therefore, as under the first charge-sheet the petitioner has already been punished, the second charge-sheet proceeding and punishment violates the doctrine of double jeopardy; (b) that after receipt of reply from the appellant to the second charge-sheet, the enquiry officer did not fix any date, time and place of the enquiry and no enquiry including oral enquiry was held by the enquiry officer as is the mandate of Rule 7of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline & Appeals) Rules, 1999 (for short 1999 Rules) and as such the entire enquiry and consequent punishment stands vitiated not only for violation of the provisions of the 1999 Rules but also the principles of natural justice.;